Sunday, January 20, 2013

Civil commitment is the new frontier of misandry

Civil commitment of sex offenders is the latest frontier of escalating misandry, at least in the USA. A long and thorough article in The New Yorker delineates this burgeoning avenue of systematic and institutionalized hatred against men: "The Science of Sex Abuse" by Rachel Aviv.

By way of example, a man called John is already imprisoned for 12 years with no end in sight, only for viewing pornography and entrapment by predatory cops who masquerade as underage girls online.

You see, the feminist state is not satisfied with locking up men for the duration of our already absurdly draconian prison terms for phony sex crimes. While, for example, sentencing for possessing child pornography has increased by over 500% in the past 15 years to 119 months on average, the prison term is only the beginning if you are a sex offender. When you are supposed to get out is when the potential life sentence begins, all made possible by the Adam Walsh Act of 2006.

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which its sponsor described as the “most comprehensive child crimes and protection bill in our Nation’s history.” It allows the federal Bureau of Prisons to keep inmates in prison past their release date if it appears that they’ll have “serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.” Their extended confinement is achieved through civil commitment, a legal procedure more often used to hospitalize patients who have severe mental illness, usually bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. The law is named after Adam Walsh, a seven-year-old boy who was kidnapped at a mall and decapitated. (His father went on to host “America’s Most Wanted.”) Since the nineties, twenty states have passed similar statutes, known as sexually-violent-predator laws, for offenders who suffer from “volitional impairment”—a legal term that does not correspond to any medical diagnosis. (...) In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that sexually-violent-predator state laws are constitutional, because they adhere to the medical model of commitment, by which patients who pose a danger to themselves or others can be prevented from leaving a hospital. To be detained, inmates must have a psychiatric illness or “mental abnormality”—typically sexual in nature—that renders them out of control.

And it doesn't take much to be deemed a “sexually dangerous” offender and hence be detained indefinitely after serving your regular prison term. Any semblance of masculinity will suffice to doom you in the eyes of your feminist overseers.

John waited for his civil-commitment hearings at the Devens prison, and although he had completed his prison term, his daily routine was largely unchanged. He wore the same uniform as other inmates and was subject to the same punishments, schedule, and rules. During a routine shakedown six months after his detainment, guards confiscated an accordion file in his cell containing more than a hundred pages of drawings and notes. A prison psychologist wrote that the papers, “when considered in their totality,” suggest that John “believes children are sexual beings who can consent to sex.” John appeared to be searching for ways to justify his desires. “Our culture has a fear of (children’s) sexuality,” he wrote on one page. “Strictly speaking a girl between 13 and 17 is not a child,” he wrote on another.

Yes, merely speaking the truth about teenage sexuality can be enough to get you indefinitely locked up. Truths I routinely promote on my blog would ensure that I never would get out of prison if I found myself in the nightmare of civil commitment as a sex offender. I fully admit to being a "sexually dangerous person" by feminist standards and I swear I would never go along with their charade and pretend to hold politically correct views on sexuality even if my freedom depended on it.

This is similar to the Norwegian travesty of preventative detention ("forvaring"), which is increasingly common even for trivial sex crimes and enables the same kind of indefinite imprisonment for hypothetical future crimes, except in the American system you don't even need to be sentenced to preventative detention in the first place. Any ostensibly time-limited sentence will do, even for victimless and completely bogus crimes constructed entirely by police deception.

The article also describes the utter corruption which passes as "research" on pedophilia and sex offenses. Prisoners are coerced into confessing false crimes against imaginary victims, and then this is used as "evidence" for continued incarceration and also published in the scholarly journals of the abuse industry, where such lies become mythology and form the basis of further escalation of hateful laws and policies against male sexuality. Thus when feminist judges and legislators cite studies like the “Butner Study Redux” from 2009 in the Journal of Family Violence which purports to show that men convicted of child pornography are 85% likely to also have committed physical sex crimes, we know it is hogwash, concocted by good old feminist methodology:

The program required that its hundred and twelve patients accept
responsibility for a life of deviant behavior and thoughts—a philosophy
common to most treatment programs. Since sex crimes are vastly
underreported, it is reasonable to expect that inmates have committed
more crimes than their records reveal. At a professional workshop,
Hernández explained that he created a climate of “systematic pressure,”
so that inmates would “put all the cards on the table,” abandoning a
“life style of manipulation.” Patients were required to compose lists of
people they had sexually harmed, which they updated every few months.
At daily community meetings, when offenders insisted that they had
nothing left to disclose, other prisoners accused them of being in
denial or “resistant to change.” If they failed to accept
responsibility, they were expelled from the program. For sex
offenders, who occupy the bottom of the prison power hierarchy, the
Butner unit was a safe haven in the federal prison system. One
child-pornography convict, Markis Revland, told the judge at his
civil-commitment hearing that when prisoners discover a sex offender
among them “they’ll go to great lengths to stab that person.” He
requested treatment at Butner after being raped at knifepoint in a
Kansas penitentiary. He was encouraged by the psychology staff at Butner
to “get it all out,” and came up with a hundred and forty-nine victims.
Like other patients, he kept a “cheat sheet” in his cell so that he
could remember his victims’ ages and the dates that he’d abused them.
There was no evidence for the crimes, thirty-four of which would have
occurred during a time when Revland was incarcerated.

I recommend reading Rachel Aviv's article in full. Read it and hate. This glimpse of truth is apt to inspire hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement and the rest of the abuse industry more than I am able to myself on my humble incitatory blog. After prolonged exposure to escalating misandry I hate cops so profoundly that words fail me and eloquence deserts me (due to all the stress hormones associated with raw hatred), but this is mainstream reporting, which is somewhat encouraging. Cops are truly the scum of the earth and I hate their guts for their persecution of male sexuality on the basis of feminist sex laws. While many so-called MRAs these days sadly are busy promoting the feminist sex abuse industry as long as it upholds equal injustice for women as well as men, I direct my activist hatred squarely where it is deserved at the feminist sex abuse industry itself and its core values. Those core values are hatred of normal male sexuality, plain and simple, and the only rational thing for men to do is to band together and fight back against the abuse industry. In practice, this probably means working for the collapse of Western civilization since feminism and manginas are now clearly endemic to it, but so be it, because this is not a society I want to live in.

92 comments:

I believe no work is required, Western civilization will collapse quite reliably on its own. Instead of condemning and fighting a society so disgusting that it isn't worthy of discussion, may I suggest you consider looking into alternatives?

Another thing one really should pay attention to, is the feminist mantra. Defined thus: "A man's value depends on how attractive he is to the other sex"

You can clearly see it being mentioned over and over again in the article, as an argument for further detention. He did not have a girlfriend or a wife.

It is not enough that a man must suffer from utter loneliness, and even being disprivileged from having sexual intimacy with another human being, making it illegal being a john. The feminists also want to take action against unattractive men making the very unattractiveness criminal.

"Later, he came back to the question, admitting that none of his relationships had been “tremendous.” Intimacy had always felt like an abstraction. “Boy, is that one for the shrinks to get ahold of,” he went on. “I know what they’d think: What a pathetic waste of human flesh. He can’t even have a relationship with a woman.”

If you try to gain sex, the feminists will go to great lengths making you suffer in prison. But if you DON'T have sex, they will get you for that as well!

1) One can be heartbroken at any age, and it can also happen without a sexual relationship, and between teens themselves. I don't think it is dramatically more dangerous at that age, or because of age difference. Anyway, the abuse industry views anyone under 18 as asexual, so they shouldn't even have the capacity to fall in love according to feminist understanding of human nature! Their only capacity is to be "abused." But this type of vulnerability that you suggest is admittedly a better argument than anything the feminists actually came up with to justify their sex laws.

2) The state should stay out of it and certainly not make it a criminal matter. However, this does not mean that deceptively using young teenage girls just for sex is nice, or older girls for that matter. It should be frowned on and possibly prevented by nonviolent means, such as perhaps warning girls about men who do this? But again, it has really very little to do with age and if it is a concern then the proper solution is to warn your daughters that men sometimes behave like that, and still let them be responsible for their choices.

Well, the abuse industry doesn't exactly inspire safety. Does it make you feel safe that you can be convicted based on the word alone of some accuser and locked up for life because your sexuality is considered inherently dangerous? Feminism is also extremely wasteful, and did not create the wealth we are currently enjoying, so I don't see how the standard of living will continue anyway. And yes, I would rather accept more natural risks and competition than live under institutionalized hatred of men perpetrated by an enemy against whom no individual can successfully defend himself. I don't think we will have peace for long either, as Western countries become internally destabilized and potential enemies keep getting stronger.

"The panel determined that John had many risk factors: he “self-identified as a ‘pedophile,’ ” evinced a “level of deviant preoccupation,” and had “never been married, thus he may have difficulty developing appropriate, intimate relationships with adults.”

Why is never being married a risk factor? Or even having difficulty with intimate relationships with adults? Does this mean that any man who commits rape or sexual molestation is unmarried, or have problems with intimate relationships? Are there scientific proof that those mentioned are having higher risk levels of becoming sexual criminals?

I also think it will get much worse. No matter how expansive and draconian sex laws get, feminists will never be satisfied. They will just keep pushing for further escalation with equal intensity. Here is one more example brought to my attention today, about taking grooming law to the next level in Australia, criminalizing more acts even further removed from any sexual activity:

You asked: Does it make you feel safe that you can be convicted based on the word alone of some accuser and locked up for life because your sexuality is considered inherently dangerous?

I agree. But here many will be interested in your particular focus on sex. Why should one have sympathy for your specific pleasure hunt, they will say, and add that you have an unnatural and freakish perception of sex. Sex is primarily procreation, next a natural "spice" in a love relationship ... ?

You said: I don't think we will have peace for long either, as Western countries become internally destabilized and potential enemies keep getting stronger.

I've got intelligence agencies watching my every step because I deliberately put myself out there as an activist. I've been so closely scrutinized that even my house plants spent 6 months in police custody being analyzed in the hopes of finding something illegal. If I had some selfish interest in being a hebephile or whatever, I would have simply shut up and done it instead of bringing all this attention on myself.

This is about good men not standing by doing nothing and tolerating injustice. That is what my activism is primarily about. And if you are socially responsible, then that is all the motivation it takes. You do not need to harbor any more or less deviant desires in order to understand that locking up men for bullshit reasons is wrong. Mine is a focus on justice rather than sex. Indefinite detention for hypothetical future crimes, for example, is so contrary to any notion of justice that you should not need to sympathize with the sexual orientation these men are accused of in order to be appalled. And even if you feel safe now, how do you know you won't somehow be criminalized next? You see what they are capable of. How can you just shrug all this injustice off as "worth it" because we have so much prosperity? That makes no sense.

How we become internally destabilized? Take a look at Angry Harry's article "Say Goodbye To Your Country" for lots of reasons, though I am not sure I agree with all of them. And I might add that MRAs such as myself will be a destabilizing factor when and if we become numerous enough to insurrect for real, and if we become a true mass movement, all we have to do is refuse to contribute to society in order to run it down the drain.

I don't think I'm known for a freakish view on sex, but even I can see jailing someone for 8 years for a hypothetic crime would be unfair. Also, putting someone in jail for possessing drawings of girls with boobs too small. You don't have to be a pedophile to find that ridiculous. A pedophile, until he actually harmed someone, is still a person like the rest of us, with rights. That is the whole point.

The fact that people think you have to be a freak or pedophile to defend the rights of deviants (like pedophiles), shows they can't imagine someone might be upset by injustice purely because it's unfair. But not everyone is arguing only for their own interests.

As for trading men's rights for "more safety", I think it's evil to build a comfortable life on the bones of others.

Vindictiveness is disgusting. Vindictiveness is how feminist justice operates. Vindictiveness is putting an 83-year-old man on trial for allegedly fondling a 16-year-old girl's breast 40 years ago. And all the other examples of untrammeled feminist jurisprudence I have chronicled on my blog. It really doesn't take a great deal of social responsibility to be sick of this. Or shouldn't take. I feel more like the only normal person in a society gone haywire than an exceptionally responsible person.

How is feminism wasteful? Well, to begin with, locking up all these men and subjecting them to expensive sex-offender "treatment" is wasteful and prevents them from being productive citizens. More laws lead to more prisoners, so this is only the beginning. Then there is the divorce industry with an army of lawyers who do nothing but redistribute assets and break up families. They add no real value and consume vast resources. More single people also lead to less efficient households, more transportation needs with more pollution, etc. And this is just to mention some obvious examples.

I don't think it's an inevitable conclusion at all. Taking money of others so that some other people can have welfare might be morally wrong, but it isn't the same as putting innocent men in prison so that possibly more real rapists are imprisoned (an example). One thing might be unfair and annoying, the other is horrible. Having said that, I'm pretty much what you said.

Emma, the alternatives that I know of are leaving the Western world (Japan being a good option), Islam, Orthodox Judaism, or starting another subculture. If I were younger, I would seriously consider Japan. As it is, I am organizing a group based on biblical (patriarchal) values where I live. The Old Testament is an exceptionally reasonable moral guide. It has nothing against pornography and it actually supports prostitution. What the Old Testament specifically doesn't tolerate is typical feminist behavior.

Arpagus: Excellent article. As concomitant to the US abuse industry, there is also what's known here as the 'Prison- Industrial Complex.' Basically, it's a growing trend for some US states to 'outsource' prisons to private industries.

Most of these private prisons are about one step removed from outright concentration camps and forced-labor enterprises that characterised the Nazi and Soviet regimes. It's also not widely known, but vigilantes like the paedohysterical John Walsh also have vested financial interests in these enterprises, thus are also interested in criminalising a wider range of activities.

They are already destabilized. As proof of this, Eivind is considered 'extreme' for advocating what a healthy society would consider normal behavior.

What the feminists call Patriarchy is synonomous with the term 'Civilization'. For the last several decades, Academia and Mass Media have taught us that Civilization is something to loathe, and that we must 'evolve' into an era of 'Postmodernism.'

But this is an illusion. The only antidote to Civilization is Barbarianism. And the West is currently devolving into the most primative matriarchial barbarism and savagery; in spite of all its superficial technological advances and philiosophical sophistries.

My antifeminist hatred is built up over many years of paying attention to misandry. It may not be entirely healthy, but it is certainly not the same as vindictiveness, which is revengefulness over trifles. The hatred one feels as a result of systematic oppression -- if that is vindictiveness, then it is a justified sort of vindictiveness. Tolerating systematic injustice is more disgusting than my kind of vindictiveness.

Yes, taxation is theft. Some theft may arguably be needed to have a society, but not anywhere near the current level, which is also spent in abominable ways like maintaining the abuse industry, which makes it much worse than simple theft.

As to what persons in history I am fascinated by... I will have to think about it and come back to it when I have more time. My historical knowledge is not great but I have a general overview and am interested in reading more.

I note that draconian punishments were imposed on most of the female sex offenders on your list. So the abuse industry is already persecuting women, albeit not yet quite as badly as they do men. Actually, the invention of female "sex offenders" is the single most loathsome aspect of feminism, in my view. The female sex offender charade is the most perverse of all miscarriages of justice. Because the boy "victims" are not only not victims; they are the opposite: spectacularly lucky. For fundamental biological reasons, women cannot ever be morally culpable for sex crimes, and I roundly condemn anyone who supports the charade of applying sex laws to women. I know the law defines lots of women as sex offenders nowadays due to feminist corruption of justice and their pretense that men and women are equal, but the law is wrong. As I have previously noted, the notion of female sexual abusers is a category error.

Most of the women on your list are also not pedophiles, since very few of the "victims" could have been pre-pubescent. At any rate, they are emphatically NOT victims!!!

The only victims are the women on that list. They are victims of the feminist abuse industry. Moreover, unlike what some MRAs seem to think, punishing women for sex crimes is unconscionable no matter how oppressed men are. Two wrongs do not make a right and equal injustice is not any better than injustice against men only, which as that list proves is not the case anyway.

The radical feminists would like to outlaw all male sexuality, and as Scarecrow pointed out, they use the 'All Sex is Rape' argument albeit under the guise of 'protecting minors.' The whole premise behind the sex/rape argument is that rape occurs when there is a supposed 'imbalance of power'---usually only when that imbalance is in favor of the men.

That's where the mRA manginas you mention go wrong in their doctrine of 'equal punishments'. The arguments are STILL entirely premised in the feminist illusion of a 'power imbalance.' In fact, the women Scarecrow mentioned would probably not be punished at all in ideal feminist utopia, although men would be punished even more severely than now.

This is why we see in America the logical absurdity of, for example, a doctor punished for engaging in consensual sex with a nurse; whereas a drug-addicted felon engaged sexually with the same nurse wouldn't be held up to any social censure whatsoever. The doctor is presumed to have power, whereas the thug isn't.

It all centers on the idea of women as an oppressed class (again betraying feminism's Marxist origins). It's when the shame of sexuality is socially removed and a gender polarity recognized that feminism fails. Even Andrea Dworkin admitted that political and legal equality alone couldn't bring about feminism, polarity had to be destroyed, as has happened throughout much of the Anglosphere. The idea of equal punishments for women does nothing to rectify that situation.

I'm glad you can see your eloquence escapes you from hatred and anger, Eivind. Other things go too, like judgement and coherence. Even when something is very hateable, there are usually better ways.

Emma and fschmidt: Other nations will act as security nets for what's worth keeping in Western civilisations via global investments. Already a lot of people (like me) have moved from the West, and we can accomodate productive people who aren't feminists or leftist extremists if there's a crisis in the West. A new future is just an airplane ticket and a decent plan away nowadays, which means the West will constantly need to reinvent itself and get rid of slack in order to compete with white winners just moving off to better countries, and leaving the feminists and multiculturalists to freeze their asses off with non producing whites and the local jihad branch. Sounds like a party I'll be glad to miss.

Far from ignoring female pedophiles and other sex offenders, it was feminism who invented them. If you don't agree, please cite a single instance of a woman being prosecuted or even just conceptualized by any source as a sex offender prior to sometime in the twentieth century (I think the female sex offender charade began in the 1970s or so). And I am talking about sex offenses under the "abuse" paradigm, where there is a "victim" -- not crimes against traditional morality like adultery or prostitution or incest. Those existed under patriarchy, but the notion that women can rape or sexually abuse in the sense that a "victim" is harmed is entirely a (second-wave) feminist fabrication. Ancient wisdom holds that women cannot rape or sexually abuse boys and the ancients got this right. The ancients knew that pussy is good (even though it could be considered immoral for other reasons) and would have laughed their asses off at the claim that a boy could be a "victim" if he has sex with a woman. In the past several decades, feminists have done their best to demolish the ancient wisdom that pussy is good. It is the most self-evident of all truths, yet feminists have been frighteningly successful at convincing all the institutions, as well as a significant number of gullible fools in the general public (but by no means the majority, at least among men), that pussy is abuse under exactly the same criteria that male sexuality is abuse, even as these criteria have expanded beyond absurdity. This is the most successful case of social engineering and brainwashing I know of, considering how spectacularly contrary to nature it is. The females on the "pedophile" list got incarcerated because the abuse industry does in fact take the female sex offender charade very seriously. Even though they don't put females in indefinite detention for sexual criminal tendencies yet, at this point they routinely sentence women to decades in prison for being nice to boys. The abuse industry is already out of control in its persecution of women and you don't hear feminists speaking out against it. Only bona fide MRAs such as my good self defend female victims of the abuse industry.

If you pay attention to what goes on in professional feminism, it is blatantly obvious that the female sex offender charade has been driven by feminism itself all along. It was hardly thanks to the clowns at AVfM or somesuch false-flag MRAs that all those female "pedophiles" on the list got arrested... Those manginas only echo the feminist propaganda they have been indoctrinated with. Nothing can be more politically correct than to raise awareness of supposed female sex offenses. The cutting edge of political correctness is to claim that women can rape men. Just take a look at the professional feminist lecture circuit, the state feminist organizations and the NGOs to see for yourself that this is happening. Here in Norway, the most vocal proponent of the female sex offender charade is the professional feminist Rannveig Svendby, who promotes the female sex offender charade for a living. Also note her association with the governmental feminist organization with the Orwellian name "Resource Centre For Men." They will have a seminar or put out a pamphlet about female sex offenders one day, and the next they organize a conference on how to combat MRAs such as myself. This is how intimately the female sex offender myth and feminism go hand in hand.

While I am trying to interject some sanity idealistically, these scumbags get paid to promote the hateful feminist agenda full-time, funded by taxpayers. Rannveig Svendby is the most unsavory voice in all of Norwegian public discourse because she claims to promote the female rapist bullshit in order to help men. If there is one thing I hate more than feminists, it is feminists who pretend their hateful agenda is good for men, too.

Thus I very much disagree with the claim that feminists don't take female sex offenders seriously, because I can see very clearly how much propaganda they put out promoting the lie that women can be sexual predators. And the coercive machinery of the police state dutifully obliges feminist ideology and imprisons these nice women. I am not at all sure that only men would be punished in a feminist utopia. It sure doesn't look that way. Feminism really appears as a hate-movement against all sexuality, and it just so happens that men are persecuted more because men are more sexually aggressive and motivated. I am not sure I buy the sexual trade union theory of feminism, because at this point feminism just acts like a monstrous organism out of control. What we have now is a case of a revolution eating its own children (as Devlin has noted), and the hateful machinery of the abuse industry is perfectly happy to ruin the lives of women as well as men. It is out of control, in the realm of a vicious social problem that no individual can do much to contain. The abuse industry has taken on a life of its own now and all the players are merely maximizing their own profits, doing anything it takes to invent more "abuse" to keep going and growing. Whether they attack men or women is of little concern to these scumbags at this point; as long as there is any hope of construing "abuse" they will go for it.

Feminism is definitely not a hate-movement against all sexuality. Feminism is a slut-power movement. The goal of sluts is to have sex with the most immoral men they can find. So sex between all women and immoral men is strongly supported by feminism. There are two reasons for the concept of female sex offenses. One is to give lip service to the idea of equality. The other is that sex between a woman and a man who isn't immoral is considered a crime by feminists. So sex with an underage male is a sex offense to feminists because this male hasn't yet had the chance to prove his immorality. Still, there is no question that female sex offenses get much lighter punishments than male sex offenses.

By the way, I noticed a smidgin of sanity buried in the female "pedophile" list. A total anachronism, no doubt. In the case of Christina Butler, the judge refuses to go along with the charade...

Prosecutors wanted former teacher Christina Butler to go to prison for repeatedly having sex with a special education student. But when Hillsborough Circuit Judge J. Rogers Padgett looked around his courtroom during Butler's sentencing, he saw no outrage. No angry parents. No damaged boy. It made him wonder if the victim felt like a victim. "When you do not have a victim, then what are you left with?" Padgett told the St. Petersburg Times on Thursday. "When you don't have retribution, you don't have much of anything." Butler, 34, faced up to 30 years in prison. Swayed by three hours of testimony about the ex-Middleton High School teacher's long history of mental disorders, the judge sentenced her Wednesday to five years of sex offender probation. He said from the bench that the victim, then 16 and borderline mentally retarded, according to prosecutors, was probably the more mature and less vulnerable of the two.

I am sure the abuse industry will correct this oversight in the future and make sure all offenders get their 30 years in prison even when all attempts to make the "victim" feel like a victim fail and the charade is painfully obvious to all onlookers...

"Abuse" trumps everything and we can't allow any vestige of human feelings or reasonableness in our feminist jurisprudence, now can we?

I agree that giving lip service to the idea of equality is a major reason feminists promote the female sex offender charade. I am sure smart feminists realize they can pacify droves of obtuse men that way who are too dense to realize sex law is a one-way street against men. But it goes beyond that, and the result we see now is more like a mass-psychosis than anything else. Humans are simply able to entertain batshit crazy hysterias, and conduct witch-hunts accordingly, and it doesn't get any better. History just repeats itself.

Eivind: I don't disagree at all that feminism invented the concept of sex offenders---for both genders.

"The result we see is mass-psychosis more than anything else."

Very true, according to the US Department of Health and Welfare 1/5 US females are consuming prescription antidepressants (amphetamines). Also, mind-altering drugs such as psychoactive diet-pills, pep-pills, and pain-killers.

Feminists certainly invented a plethora of bullshit sorts of sex offenders of both sexes. But the concept of male sex offenders existed before feminism, and some of it was justified. I agree with Angry Harry that we do need an abuse industry, but only a small one equipped merely to deal with real, serious cases of abuse. And a more moderate abuse industry has indeed been in place since ancient times. Rape, as properly defined, has been criminalized in all cultures (at least against some classes of women), and age-of-consent laws protecting true children (typically girls under 10 or so) go back for several centuries. When first-wave feminists initially began raising the age of consent in the nineteenth century, it only applied to male offenders. Gender-neutrality came a century later, with second-wave feminism, and this is when the batshit crazy perversion begins, defining boys as victims when they are in fact lucky. Not that I agree with raising the age of consent to include teenagers in the first place, of course, but applying it to boys versus women adds a level of insanity to jurisprudence which surpasses any other human stupidity ever dreamt up. The invention of the female sex offender is the point at which Western civilization decayed down the rabbit hole irredeemably.

In classical Athens among the elite classes, there was careful monitoring and chaperoning of adolescent boys by their families, as described by Pausanias in Plato's Symposium, in order to make sure they would not be sexually abused by predatory erastai. Plato was a lot saner than modern feminists. He understood that male sexuality (including homosexuality) can be predatory, but female sexuality intrinsically cannot be and hence no chaperoning or laws are needed to protect boys from women sexually. Protecting boys and men from women's sexual abuses is a feminist idea exclusively, and it is definitely the most bizarre and offensive lie in all of feminism as far as I am concerned.

If female sex offenders were ever a real problem, could we not expect that somebody somewhere would have addressed it in some manner, whether by law or literature, before the 20th-century feminists arrived on the scene? But nobody did! Or if they did, I would like to see a reference and I challenge the feminists and manginas to come up with one. No one has yet been able to provide me with an historical reference to female sexual abusers. Why do you think our contemporary feminists are wiser than the entire history of civilization put together? Men who buy into the female sex offender charade, please answer me that! Their other claims about gender-equality don't inspire much confidence, so why do manginas like Paul Elam trust the feminists completely as soon as the topic is sexual abuse?

Examples of female sex abuse statutes before the 20th century? Isn't that like asking for statutes requiring women to pay alimony? Women had dependent legal status, and before birth control sexuality was more controlled by society. If such acts were even thinkable to the criminally insane female minds at that time they would have been dealt with "off the books".

That said, you might be right that the concept of "female rapist" serves more to legitimize rape hysteria than to undermine it. I think it's a little unfair to label men "collaborators" if they try to make women think twice about spiteful laws against men by holding them to the same standard, since a mutually assured destruction strategy makes some sense, even if it might be foolish to think that women wouldn't push the button.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object."

Okay. Let me explain this to you boy. The reason why women have never been reported, recorded or prosecuted as molestors or rapists, is that the female has always been perceived as a class of the innocent in need of protection, incapable of sin or crime except in circumstances beyond their control. Throughout history, women have behaved as anything but, using their sexuality as currency in order to manipulate men into taking care of them, and the dirtier, less tasteful aspects of life, like work and war and industry. your claim that a man or boy ,getting pussy,´ is lucky is retarded in the extreme. if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the priveleges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree. as for this speciest arguement that if theres an erection theres no rape....what about if theres lubrication...or an orgasm, as has been recorded on many occasions by women who were assaulted? lastly...as a 19 year old boy, i had a 38 year old woman seduce me and basically, strip me down and keep át me´ till something happened. when she left, i did not feel lucky. i felt dirty and confused. and hollow...like i had been used like a 6 foot flesh f88k-pole...19 years and 11 girfriends later, i am only now enjoying intimate sex.

suggested reading material...1) steve moxon-the woman racket -or read his blog...2) lawrence shannon-predatory female-a book that went out of print, i believe, because of its ¨heretical¨ content...3) manipulated man-esther villar- a courageous woman, who received numerous death threats after the publication of her ´ pamphlet ´.4) any of the three nathanson/young books on misandry. the most academic, well-argued and complete analyses of this bullshit misandrist travesty we are facing...

while this is slightly off topic...every time i look into the whole misandry thing, i get the feeling that we are allowing the current arguement to be defined by feminist terms and ideas, and fought actively or passively on an ideological and sociological battleground defined by women and female/pro-feminist academia. its a battle we cannot win, by fighting on their terms on their ground. men need to regroup, assess who we are and what we are about, claim and own what works for us and in us, while burying what is defunct, in the past, respectfully...before moving forward with meaningful action.

It really does not seem to me like women have always been perceived as a class of innocents. Were women held to be innocent during the witch-hunts in late medieval and early modern Europe, for example? On the contrary, society is perfectly capable of punishing and demonizing women, even for bullshit crimes, much like the current phony sex abuse hysteria that now is increasingly preying on women too.

I never claimed the presence of an erection or other signs of arousal excludes rape. That is a straw man. It is not what my argument hinges on at all. Women cannot be rapists due to far more fundamental, biological reasons having to do with the relative value of male and female sexuality. In short, sex is a female resource and any attempt to turn this around only makes you look like a buffoon. How can you justify treating it like a heinous crime when a boy "raped" by a woman becomes the envy of his peers? It is absurd, and takes an amazing degree of brainwashing, to go along with the female sex offender charade, which is not incidentally invented by the feminists because feminism is what it serves and a useful idiot you are if you internalize it as a man.

"as a 19 year old boy, i had a 38 year old woman seduce me and basically, strip me down and keep át me´ till something happened. when she left, i did not feel lucky. i felt dirty and confused."

I see. I suppose we must raise the age of consent to at least 20, then, since you can't handle women at 19. So this is what manhood is reduced to these days -- more childlike than even radical feminists claim women are. You really want us to see yourself at 19 as a confused child who need the feminist state to protect him from seduction attempts by women because he has absolutely no agency of his own? And then hold the rest of us to that infantile standard? So now we need to imprison all men who seduce 19-year-old women too, of course, but it would be worth it just to cater to your idea of victimhood.

This is sadly what much of the Men's Movement has degenerated into lately. More feminist than the radical feminists themselves. This sad state of affairs is the topic of my next blog post that I am working on, but meanwhile here is a few links on the rise of sex-negative so-called MRAs:

Eivind: "Let's raise the age of consent to 20 then, because you can't handle a woman at 19"

I've suspected for sometime now that these manginas were practicing some variation of what Antifeminist describes as sexual trade-unionism. I think that you called it exactly right: they are motivated by sexual jealousy, just like the feminists.

These lower-status males really want to demonize male sexuality, just like the feminists do because it's the only way to raise their own status by tearing down other men.

@Eric,These lower-status males really want to demonize male sexuality, just like the feminists do because it's the only way to raise their own status by tearing down other men.

That would be the only motive I can think of for it, other than the other more obvious factor: that they are total manginas and panzys by nature and are thus, simply frightened of the disgusting, UGLY lesbian femihags. So they submit or relent to their hate and to their demands.

When a 'man' refers to an ugly, skanky femRA such as TyphonBlue as a 'Lovely Sheila', it can only mean his status with women is about as low as it can possibly be!

dude...i was trying to make a point...that I dont agree with your assertion that men cant be raped by women. that was the only point i was making and illustrating. as for your mechanistic assessment of human sexual relations, are you that cynical that you can reduce every action to politics, including sex? and lastly, the world does not revolve around the vagina and men wanting their penises in one. this simple fact, like many others, is not acknowledged because it demands something of any man who actually thinks about it. you, like many others, have been sucked into the rhetorical brain-washing machine, and when you fervently spout your brand of bile, all i see are bubbles vulnerable to the porcupine that is real life.

"are you that cynical that you can reduce every action to politics, including sex?"

Lawmaking is politics. Wanting to criminalize female "rapists" is every bit as political as opposing the concept. Believing in female rapists is utterly flawed and misguided, or malicious if you really understand what you are doing.

"the world does not revolve around the vagina and men wanting their penises in one"

Actually, it does. It is called evolution and sexual selection and most of our adaptations function accordingly. Evolution certainly did not produce men who are traumatized by vaginas just because some feminist legislators decreed an age of consent, yet this is literally what you believe...

"you sound just like the people you claim to hate...so i just cant take you seriously..."

You sound exactly like a feminist. I have now written a post on the false-flag MRA cheerleader chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry that you represent:

Eivind: LOL, on my last comment it looks as though the bumbling Norwegian police forgot to replace my name while they were tracking my IP address. I'm not sure it's a big deal, but you might want to fix that if you can...LOL

Eric, no need to dumb this page down with paranoia and LOLs - the Norwegian police are not tracking any IP-adresses on this blog as it's simply not technically possible. So relax (about that, at least).

Guy Fawkes: Don't worry about paranoia, I've been spied on by the 'bad guys' so often that it doesn't really bother me. Besides the Norwegian police couldn't even catch Eivind (who's in their own country) so there's nothing they could do me anyway.